Estrada, Eurich G.

COA – 1J

ERROR ANALYSIS TYPE I

ARTICLE: CASE G.R. Nos. 138874 – 75, July 21, 2005 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias
"WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE
RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG"; and JAMES ANDREW
UY alias "MM", Accused-Appellants.

SUPPORTING ARTICLE: WRONGLY CONVICTED by Marites D. Vitug, Oct.20, 2012, RAPPLER

OVERVIEW: This case is all about Francisco Paco Larañaga , a man of dual Filipino and Spanish citizenship
was, along with six others, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by lethal injection on February 3,
2004.

ANALYSIS:

It was all started on the night of July 16, 1997, when Ms. Marijoy Chiong and Ms. Jacqueline Chiong was
kidnapped outside a mall in Cebu. Two days After, Marijoy’s body was found dead while Jacqueline ‘s body
was never found. The prosecution identified the suspects as follows; Francisco Juan Larrañaga alias “Paco”;
Josman Aznar; Rowen Adlawan alias “Wesly”; Alberto Caño alias “Allan Pahak”; Ariel Balansag; Davidson
Valiente Rusia alias “ Tisoy Tagalog”; James Andrew Uy alias “MM”.

The Prosecution’s allegation centered at Davidson Valiente Rusia, a co – defendant who turned as the star
– witness in exchange for immunity. Rusia, who claimed to have been part of the gang that raped the
chiong sisters, identinfied Larrañaga et Al., as his companions.

The prosecution accused Larrañaga et Al., that they raped the chiong sisters and threw one of the sisters
into a ravine, although the Defense had disputed this allegation as there was no formal identification of the
body while the other sister was never found.

The defense was able to produce about 35 witness composed by Larrañaga’s teachers and classmates at
the Center for Culinary Arts (CCA) in Quezon city. The Defense lawyers also were able to present an
evidence of his whereabouts on the evening of the crime – that at that time 19 years old - Larrañaga, was
at a party at the R&R Restaurant along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City, and stayed there until early
morning the following day. After the party, the logbook of the security guard at Larrañaga's condominium
indicates that Larrañaga returned to his Quezon City condominium at 2:45 a.m.

Rowena Bautista, an instructor, and chef at the culinary center said Larrañaga was in school from 8 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. and saw him again at about 6:30 p.m on July 16.  The school's registrar, Caroline Calleja, said
she proctored a two-hour exam where Larrañaga was present from 1:30 p.m. Larrañaga attended his
second round of midterm exams on July 17 commencing at 8 a.m. Only then did Larrañaga leave for Cebu
in the late afternoon of July 17, 1997.

Airline and airport personnel also came to court with their flight records, indicating that Larrañaga did not
take any flight on July 16, 1997, nor was he on board any chartered aircraft that landed in or departed
from Cebu during the relevant dates, except the 5 p.m. Philippine Airlines flight on July 17, 1997, from
Manila to Cebu.

Despite of the evidence presented by the defense to prove the innocence of Larrañaga, the trial court
considered these testimonies irrelevant, rejecting these as coming from "friends of the accused," so they
were not admitted and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused without reasonable doubt.

The Verdict finally came and the seven co – defendants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death
by lethal injection on February 3, 2004.

“Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent - the LORD detests them both”.

- Proverbs 17:151

The actual occurrence of wrongful convictions 2 may have been memorialized in our case law when the
Supreme Court, expressing its concern on the implications of the imposition of the capital punishment,
acknowledge in People vs. Mateo3 that 71.77 % of the death penalty cases elevated to it on automatic
review were either modified or vacated, as a result, a total of 651 out of 907 lined up in death row were
saved from Lethal Injection.

1
Proverbs 17:15
2
Wrongful conviction may be viewed in at least two ways: firstly, an innocent person is convicted, and secondly, a person is convicted without observing the proper
procedure and violating his rights. John Roman et al., Post-Conviction DNA testing and Wrongful conviction( A research report for the Urban Institute justice Policy
Center) 8, available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412589-Post-Conviction-DNA-Testing-and-Wrongful-Conviction.pdf(last accessed April 25, 2020).
3
People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640 (2004)
The case of Francisco Juan Larrañaga vs Philippines 4 which generated significant public attention had been
brought to the United Nations (U.N.). It is nonetheless the case of Larrañaga, heard before the U.N. Human
Rights Committee, that has sustained interest and advocacy, which even included a documentary5 -

Accessible to viewers worldwide. To this, date Accused Larrañaga, who was extradited to Spain in 20096 ,
has maintained his innocence7.

According to the Innocence Project, an organization “dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted

people through deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing and reforming the criminal justice system 8, wrongful
convictions may be caused by the following factors: eyewitness, misidentification, unvalidated or improper
forensics, false confessions or admissions, forensic science misconduct, government misconduct,
informants, and bad lawyering9. The organization however acknowledges the significance of DNA results,
particularly those relating to post – conviction DNA testing, in securing exonerations of wrongfully
convicted people.

Forensic evidence “includes such clues as fingerprints, blood and blood stains, drug and alcohol, hairs and
fibers, firearms and toolmarks.”10In a Courtroom set – up, it however usually consists of laboratory
analysis or reports (e.g., ballistics, blood spatter analysis, serology, dactyloscopy, DNA, gait analysis
reports, etc.) coupled by an expert witness to interpret and explain results before judge. This actually
distinguishes it from other physical evidences or other objects recovered from the crime scene, which need
not be subjected to tests to determine exactly what their value is.

The Importance of forensic evidence in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt was emphasized in the
consolidated cases of Lejano and Webb, where two justices of the Supreme Court strongly expressed their
opinion on the absence of the results of the DNA analysis and the failure of the prosecution to produce
semen specimen.

Former Justice and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio – Morales asserted that the results could have
dissipated “nagging doubts” on the culpability of the accused. 11Former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A.
Sereno was even more emphatic when she observe that “there was little objective forensic evidence
obtained from the crime scene”12 She also questioned the seeming indifference to DNA results, stressed
its importance , and affirmed the right of the accused to access such evidence, thus:

“Meanwhile, the idea that a negative DNA test results would not have necessarily exculpated Webb, because previous
sexual Congress by Carmela with another man prior to the crime could not be discounted, would unrealistically raise the bar of
evidence – and for the wrong party. [i.e.,] for the part of the defense, instead of the prosecution. If a negative DNA test results could
not be considered as providing certainty that Webb. Did not commit the crime, would it not have at least cast a reasonable doubt that
he committed it?

Moreover, the argument against the relevance of the semen sample – that the presence of semen was not necessary to prove that rape
– is not on point. What the Defense was after [,] when it sought DNA testing [,] was neither to prove nor to disprove the commission
of rape, but to pinpoint the identity of the assailant. In this case, semen with spermatozoa was in fact obtained, and it did possess
exculpatory potential that might be beneficial to the accused. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, [it was] held that courts should apply the
results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress’. Hence, it is
constitutional duty of trial judge to afford all possible means to both the NBI and the counsel for the accused, in order that such
evidence may be scrutinized in open court.”

Forensic evidence is also physical evidence 13 that is the important in proving the commission of the crime,
reconstructing the crime scene, providing links, identifying perpetrators, and testing the truth of a matter
asserted by a witness14.Courts have therefore relied on it, and it has been observed that juries, in criminal
cases, have already expected that some piece of it will be presented to them during trial. 15This kind of
evidence, when collected properly and interpreted correctly , catalyzes what may seem to be
independent circumstances to recreate a reliable depiction of how a criminal activity was carried out. 16
As it may not be changed by opinion or perspective, it can provide a strong foundation - one that may
even be universally acceptable , for a conclusion upon which the life and liberty of a person may have
actually rest.
4
U.N.H.R.C., Francisco Juan Larrañaga vs Philippines, Communication No. 868/1999, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/79/D/868/1999(Nov. 11, 2003)

5
Michael Collins & Marty Syjuco, Give up Tommorow
6
Timi Nubla, Larrañaga turned over to spain, available at https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/10/06/09/larrañaga-turned-over-spain( Last accessed April 25, 2020)
7
Ria Limjap, give up Tomorrow: Never Give up
8
See innocence Project, about the organization , available at https://www.innocenceproject.org/about/(last accessed April 25, 2020)
9
See innocence Project, about the organization , available at https://www.innocenceproject.org/about/(last accessed April 25, 2020)
10
Joseph L. Peterson, Use of Forensics Evidence by the Police and Courts, Research in brief, NAT’L. INST. OF JUSTICE, Oct.1987, at 2.
11
Lejano, 638 SCRA at 189 (2010) (J. Carpio – Morales, concurring opinion)
12
Lejano, 638 SCRA at 293 (2010) (J. Carpio – Morales, concurring opinion)
13
PETER P. NG & PHILIPP U. PO, FORENSIC SCIENCE 25(2007). SEE ALSO Oregon State Police Forensic Services Division, Physical Evidence Manual Intro.,
14
See National Institute of Justice, Forensic Science: Type of Evidence , available at https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/forensics/evidence-analysis-and-processing ( last
accessed April 25, 2020)
15
NG & PO, supra note 3 I, at 26 -28. See also Donald E. Shelton, Et al., A study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the “CSI
effect” exist? 9 VAND.J.ENT & TECH. L. 331, 357(2006).
16
Peterson, supra note 25, at 2.
The opinions are so far two of the most potent ones that appreciate the use and implications of forensic
evidence in criminal trials. Nevertheless, their effects as to how they will impact the conduct of judges in
resolving criminal cases before them have yet to be seen. They do, however, provide authorities that can
support demands for the eventual and more aggressive use and application of forensic evidence. In the
meantime, traditional doctrines on physical evidence, although rendered unstable by case law
acknowledging the adequacy of testimonial evidence in clinching conviction may serve the purpose.

ERROR ANALYSIS TYPE 1

ARTICLE: CASE G.R. No. 135915 December 21, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ALBERT ERNEST WILSON, accused-appellant.

SUPPORTING ARTICLE: Taxi driver in child rape case hopes to cheat Manila death row by Adam Easton,
May 11, 1999, The Guardian.

OVERVIEW: Albert Wilson, A Briton and former taxi driver, was sentenced to die by lethal injection for
raping the daughter of his Filipina girlfriend, Vicky Delistan, 38.

ANALYSIS:

On 16 September 1996, the Authorities was forcibly arrested without warrant as a result of a complaint of
rape filed by the biological father of the author's twelve-year-old stepdaughter and transferred to a police
station. He was not advised of his rights, and, not speaking the local language, was unaware as to the
reasons for what was occurring.

At the police station, he was held in a 4 by 4-foot cage with three others and charged on the second day
with attempted rape of his stepdaughter. He was then transferred to Valenzuela municipal jail, where the
charge was changed to rape. There he was beaten and ill-treated in a "concrete coffin". This sixteen by
sixteen-foot cell held 40 prisoners with a six-inch air gap some 10 foot from the floor.

One inmate was shot by a drunken guard, and the author had a gun placed to his head on several
occasions by guards. The bottoms of his feet were struck by a guard's baton, and other inmates struck him
on the guards' orders. He was ordered to strike other prisoners and was beaten when he refused to do so.

He was also constantly subjected to extortion by other inmates with the acquiescence and in some
instances on the direct instruction of the prison authorities and beaten when he refused to pay or perform
the directed act(s). There was no running water, insufficient sanitary conditions (a single non-flush bowl in
the cell for all detainees), no visiting facility, and severe food rationing. Nor was he segregated from
convicted prisoners.

Between 6 November 1996 to 15 July 1998, the author was tried for rape. From the outset, he maintained
that the allegation was fabricated and pleaded not guilty. The stepdaughter’s mother and brother testified
in support of the author, stating that both had been at home when the alleged incident took place, and
that it could not have occurred without their knowledge.

The police medical examiner, who examined the girl within 24 hours of the alleged incident, made internal
and external findings which, according to the author, were wholly inconsistent with alleged forcible rape.
Medical evidence procured during the trial also contradicted the allegation, and, according to the author, in
fact demonstrated that the act could not have taken place as alleged. There was also evidence of several
other witnesses that the story of rape had been fabricated by the stepdaughter’s natural father, in order to
extort money from the author.

On 30 September 1998 the author was convicted of rape and sentenced to death, as well as to P50,000
indemnity, by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. According to the author, the conviction was based
solely on the testimony of the girl, who admitted she was lying when she first made the allegation of
attempted rape, and there were numerous inconsistencies in her trial testimony.

The author was then placed on death row in Muntinlupa prison, where a thousand death row prisoners
were kept in three dormitories. Foreign inmates were continually extorted by other inmates with the
acquiescence, and sometimes at the direction of, prison authorities. The author refers to media reports
that the prison was controlled by gangs and corrupt officials, at whose mercy the author remained
throughout his confinement on death row. Several high-ranking prison officials were sentenced for
extortion of prisoners, and large amounts of weapons were found in cells. The author was pressured and
tortured to provide gangs and officials with money. There were no guards in the dormitory or cells, which
contained over 200 inmates and remained unlocked at all times. His money and personal effects had been
removed from him en route to the prison, and for three weeks he had no visitors, and therefore no basic
necessities such as soap or bedding. Food comprised unwashed rice and other inappropriate substances.
Sanitation consisted of two non-flushing toilet bowls in an area which was also a 200-person communal
shower.

The author was forced to pay for the eight by eight-foot area in which he slept and financially to support
the eight others with him. He was forced to sleep alongside drug-deranged individuals and persons who
deliberately and constantly deprived him of sleep. He was forcibly tattooed with a permanent gang mark.
Inmates were stretched out on a bench on public display and beaten with wood across the thighs, or
otherwise "taught a lesson". The author states he lived in constant fear coming close to death and suicidal
depression, watching six inmates walk to their execution while five others died violent deaths. Fearing
death after a "brutally unfair and biased" trial, he suffered severe physical and psychological distress and
felt "total helplessness and hopelessness". As a result, he is "destroyed both financially and in many ways
emotionally".

On 21 December 1999, i.e. subsequent to the submission of the communication under the Optional
Protocol, the Supreme Court, considering the case on automatic review, set aside the conviction, finding it
based on allegations "not worthy of credence", and ordered the author's immediate release. The Solicitor-
General had filed a brief with the Court recommending acquittal on the basis that material contradictions
in witness testimony, as well as the physical evidence to the contrary, justified the conclusion that the
author's guilt had not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.

On 22 December 1999, on his release from death row, the Bureau of Immigration lifted a Hold Departure
Order, on condition that the author paid fees and fines amounting to P22,740. - for overstaying his tourist
visa. The order covered the entirety of his detention, and if he had not paid, he would not have been
allowed to leave the country for the United Kingdom. The ruling was confirmed after an appeal by the
British Ambassador to the Philippines, and subsequent efforts directed from the United Kingdom to the
Bureau of Immigration and the Supreme Court in order to recover these fees proved similarly unavailing.

Upon his return to the United Kingdom, the author sought compensation pursuant to Philippine Republic
Act 7309. The Act creates a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for victims of unjust
imprisonment or detention, compensation being calculable by month. Upon inquiry, he was informed on 21
February 2001 that on 1 January 2001, he had been awarded P14,000, but that he would be required to
claim it in person in the Philippines. On 12 March 2001, he wrote to the Board of Claims seeking
reconsideration of quantum, on the basis that according to the legal scale 40 months in prison should
result in a sum of P40,000. On 23 April 2001, he was informed that the amount claimed was 'subject to
availability of funds' and that the person liable for the author's misfortune was the complainant accusing
him of rape. No further clarification on the discrepancy of the award was received.

On 9 August 2001, after applying for a tourist visa to visit his family, the author was informed that as a
result of having overstayed his tourist visa and having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,
he had been placed on a Bureau of Immigration watchlist. When he inquired why the conviction should
have such effect after it had been quashed, he was informed that to secure travel certification he would
have to attend the Bureau of Immigration in the Philippines itself.

 The author also sought to lodge a civil suit for reparation, on the basis that the administrative remedy for
compensation outline above would not take into account the extent of physical and psychological suffering
involved. He was not eligible for legal aid in the Philippines, and from outside the country was unable to
secure pro-bono legal assistance.

here are facts that may be argued differently. As a result of which, a mistaken conclusion may be reached.
However, the use of forensic evidence, at the very least, minimizes such occasions and brings certainty to
criminal proceedings.17 For example, it may clarify or prevent further controversy arising from conflicting
observations or interpretations of other physical evidence.18

Nevertheless, presentation of physical evidence is only required in cases where testimonial evidence is
inherently weak and no other physical evidence was offered by the prosecution to prove the crime
charged.19 In other words, failure to present it does not automatically mean that the prosecution will be
deemed not to have satisfied its burden of proof. In fact, in Suerte-Felipe v. People,20 the Supreme Court
held:

At the outset, sit] must [be] stress[ed] that while physical evidence ranks very high in [the] hierarchy of trustworthy evidence and can
be relied upon principally to ascertain the truth, presentation thereof is not absolutely indispensable to sustain a conviction.
Petitioner's stance [,] that the insufficiency of physical evidence inevitably leads to acquittals,] is flawed, as [the Supreme Court has],
on several occasions, sustained convictions based on purely testimonial evidence. In the same manner, guilt beyond reasonable doubt

17
. See LEO O. OLARTE, LEGAL MEDICINE (VOLUME II) 80-84 (2006).
18
 See People v. Visperas, Jr., 395 SCRA 128 (2003). In this case, the accused and 
the trial court had diverging interpretations of the physical evidence. The Supreme Court said, 
The theories of appellant and the court a quo may not be clear as to some of the circumstances surrounding the killing. [It is] certain, however, that the victim had
been shot on the head, and that appellant was positively identified as the culprit who had fired the fatal shot at close range. These facts remain steadfast and are not
by any means 
diminished by the differing theories discussed. Id. at 141.
19
People v. Caraang, 418 SCRA 321, 354-57 (2003).
20
Suerte-Felipe v. People, 547 SCRA 462 (2008)
may be --- produced by the amalgamation of certain physical and testimonial evidence which, when taken separately, would have
been insufficient to sustain a conviction.21

This pronouncement is quite odd and confusing. To ascertain the truthfulness of testimonial evidence, the
only benchmark is its conformity to the trier's knowledge, observation, and experience, 22 which in itself is
subjective. Note, however, that the general rule is still that there is no test of truth for human testimony. 23
In fact, our law even requires that the testimony of a victim must find support in physical evidence. 24The
Supreme Court even ruled that the testimony of the complainant in a case of rape committed through
force must be corroborated by physical evidence showing use of force. 25

Despite Suerte-Felipe, however, physical evidence is still regarded as the most trustworthy of all evidence
and will prevail in case it conflicts with testimonial evidence, 26even when it comes from 100 witnesses. 27 In
the realm of evidence, it occupies a distinct position. Thus, in Jose v. Court of Appeals,28 the Supreme Court
chose to rely more on photographs than on the testimony of a witness:

The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather than on Rommel Abraham's testimony which was
obviously biased and unsupported by any other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it
ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape [,] where the accused stands to lose his
liberty if found guilty, [the] Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. 29

In People v. Carillo, 30 even in the presence of direct evidence consisting of eyewitness accounts as to who
inflicted injuries on whom, the Supreme Court sided on physical evidence and disregarded the testimonies
of defense witnesses, thus: 

[T]he defenses presented no less than five alleged eyewitnesses to the stabbing, including accused-appellant himself, who
claimed that only Eduardo Candare inflicted wounds on the victim. 

Witnesses, however, are weighed and not counted by numbers. In this case, the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense appear
contrary to the physical evidence. As shown by the medical examination, the two stab wounds sustained by the victim ... were caused
by two different weapons, one probably an ice pick and the other a hunting knife. Mute but eloquent testimony to the manifestation of
truth, physical evidence ranks high in the hierarchy of evidence.31 

Notwithstanding the recognized value of forensic evidence (as physical evidence), cases are still decided
on the basis of other physical evidence which may not even have gone through forensic examination.
Note, however, that this is actually not the norm. Commonly still, convictions are secured only with the use
of testimonies of who a judge will consider credible witnesses. The Supreme Court has even declared that
the testimony of one, for as long as positive and credible, is already sufficient to support a conviction, 32
and especially so when it “bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. 33 This is true even though there is “no
test of the truth of human testimony.34 

21
Id. at 469.
22
 People v. Atadero, 387 SCRA 179, 193-94 (2002)
23
Id. 40
24
People v. Ombreso, 372 SCRA 675, 711 (2001) (Per curiam, dissenting opinion)
25
People v. Ganduma, 160 SCRA 799, 805 (1988)
26
Senoja v. People, 440 SCRA 695, 709 (2004); People v. Asuncion, 364 SCRA 
703, 715 (2001); People v. Roche, 330 SCRA 91, 109 (2000); & People v. 
Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160, 175 (1997)
27
angan v. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 119, 123 (2002) & People v. Jervoso, 
124 SCRA 765, 770 (1983)Senoja v. People, 440 SCRA 695, 709 (2004); People v. Asuncion, 364 SCRA 
703, 715 (2001); People v. Roche, 330 SCRA 91, 109 (2000); & People v. 
Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160, 175 (1997)
28
Jose v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 25 (2000).
29
 Id. at 31
30
People v. Carillo, 333 SCRA 338 (2000). 
2013] WRONGFUL CONVICTION & FORENSIC EVIDENCE 1163
31
 Id. at 346-47 & 349.
32
 People v. Mamarion, 412 SCRA 438, 459 (2003)
33
. People v. Bulan, 459 SCRA 550, 563 (2005)
34
 Atadero, 387 SCRA at 193. 
1164 
 ERROR ANALYSIS TYPE II

ARTICLE:
G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINO ALEJANDRO Y
PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant.

OVERVIEW: Accused appellant was charged with two counts of rape of a 12-year old minor Upon
arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued.

ANALYSIS:

AAA testified that accused -appellant followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school.
There, accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into
her vagina.

Two months later, accused-appellant went inside AAA's house through a window one night, undressed
himself and AAA, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. On both occasions, accused-appellant
threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened.

AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her to the Municipal Health Office
where she was examined by Dr. CCC. Dr. CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old
and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indicated positive sexual
intercourse.

Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any
evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision.

RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant

On the same day, however, the RTC recalled.

Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration... arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately
final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-
appellant in double jeopardy.

RTC denied the motion

Accused-appellant appealed to the CA

CA dismissed the appeal and held that the RTC's Order of recalling and setting aside the judgment of
acquittal was justified.

Issues:

The error committed by the RTC cannot be validly recalled without transgressing the accused-appellant's
right against double jeopardy.

Ruling:

In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final
and unappealable.

There was a valid information for two counts of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the
accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a judgment of acquittal was thereafter
rendered and promulgated

What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion
that the private complainant failed to testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different
case involving the same accused-appellant. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of
acquittal had already been promulgated.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may
only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.

If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the
court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated.

in this case, the RTC was reminded of the fact that private complainant AAA testified during the trial, only
after it had already rendered and promulgated the judgment of acquittal. The RTC then realized that had
AAA's testimony been taken into account, the case would have had a different outcome. Consequently, the
RTC issued an Order recalling the judgment of acquittal for the purpose of rectifying its error, and
thereafter, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellant for two counts of rape. This, however,
cannot be countenanced for a contrary ruling would transgress the accused-appellant's constitutionally-
enshrined right against double jeopardy.

Principles:

For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3)
the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the
case was dismissed without his express consent.

The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been
deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave
abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.

COMMENTS:

For well-funded defense cases, the practice may not be much of a problem as contrary physical evidence
to prove the falsity of a witness' testimony, which may be financially difficult to secure, may nevertheless
be obtained. This does not mean of course that this happens all the time. For instance, in high profile cases
generating significant media hype and thus receiving wide public attention, testimonies of witnesses are
almost always readily accepted without due regard to what physical evidence actually suggests. This may
be in large part caused by the consideration accorded by case law to testimonial evidence. 

However, for those whose resources are already drained or those who do not even have any to begin with,
they will have no other choice but to turn to the courts for succor. If they are not even aware that there is
a way 

by which their innocence may be shielded from fabricated or false evidence, their problem worsens. 

Ideally, it is at this point that judges should come in and perform their roles as vanguards of justice and
remember that, if they can direct the prosecution to present additional evidence to establish probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, is then there is certainly more reason why they should so
direct the same thing if they find that the evidence submitted, considering established evidentiary rules
and developments in forensic science, may not be sufficient to justify facts, which may have already been
established by other forms of evidence such as testimonies. They must understand that an accused, at the
commencement of trial, immediately finds himself in a disadvantaged position.35

in a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest with a prior
inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of command; with counsel usually of authority and
capacity, who are regarded as public officers, and therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an
attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and
distracting struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law strives to meet by the
rule that there is to be no conviction when there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. 36

While authorities recognize that this is the reason why proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to
secure conviction of an accused, 37 it must not be forgotten that such quantum of proof will only remain a
mere legal construct void of any practical meaning if not enforced. Judges must operationalize this, and
not just in the way that they were accustomed to. As there is no exact test that such proof already does
exist and must depend upon moral certainty, 38 which not to mention, is a very subjective term, the manner
by which it is established must necessarily have to change, not only on a case to case basis, but also as
time passes by and technology for criminal investigation and detection develops.

While judges in the past, who did not have access to the technology available presently and who may have
decided criminal cases without any aid from forensic evidence, may be excused, those tasked to
administer justice now simply have no reason to be nonchalant and not to be vigilant in securing the best
evidence obtainable just so they can be “more” morally certain about their decision to acquit or convict. It
is only through this that proof beyond reasonable doubt will not be diluted and the confidence in the
criminal justice system will be preserved. Thus, it has been observed: 

Moreover, use of the reasonable doubt standard is indispensable to command the respect and confidence
of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law
not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being
condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs

35
 See People v. Berroya, 283 SCRA 111 (1997).
36
 53. Berroya, 283 SCRA at 122 (citing RICARDO J. FRANCISCO, EVIDENCE 576 (3d 
ed.)).

37
 Id.
38
 Id.
have confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a
proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. 39 

Judges must realize the potential impact of forensic evidence especially in terms of preventing wrongful
conviction. If a judge must indeed remain an impartial trier of fact, he must, first and foremost, have
access to materials that can actually lead him to the truth. 40 His goal must be accuracy and he should not
be compromising, as it is no less than the life and liberty of an accused (and those of his family members)
that is at stake. Physical evidence, under which forensic evidence falls, is an unbiased body of
evidence.41Paul Leland Kirk described it, thus: 

Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves even unconsciously, will serve as silent
evidence against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the
glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or
collects — all these and more bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is
not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual
evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only
interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. 42

is where forensic evidence comes in. The judge must internalize this as technology has already evolved to
the extent that it now allows several methods 43 by which evidence may be examined, which are not even
known or accessible years ago. The results that may be obtained are promising as they facilitate fact-
finding with at least a considerable degree of accuracy, which for the longest time had only remained an
aspiration. With this, and as he is also aware that the prosecution has all the backing of the government
and police investigators to run after offenders, the judge must, at the very least, frown upon any failure to
submit pertinent and sufficient forensic evidence, either voluntarily or as directed, or form reasonable
doubts to the evidence presented. 

The effect of forensic evidence in criminal litigation was a subject of a study conducted by the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service of the Unites States Department of Justice. 44 It was observed that juries
treated scientific evidence as “trustworthy, not subject to human emotion and distortion, 45and resultantly,
prosecutors felt the need to produce such kind of evidence and to explain whenever they could not offer
any.46It was also found out that 

[w]hile the presence of forensic evidence tends to help yield a conviction primarily when cases are
otherwise weak (e.g., no incriminating statements), the absence of such evidence leads to lower conviction
rates. Prosecutors in our hypothetical case reviews believe it is principally the absence of forensic
evidence — usually in combination with the absence of confession or other strong evidence — which
pushes cases toward dismissal or acquittal. In rape cases, the lack of a laboratory report leads to
significantly lower conviction rates when defendants have offered alibis.47

Acknowledging the potential of scientific (forensic) evidence, prosecutors were also recommended to use it
as its impact on criminal justice process was noted to be “limited by the extent to which it (was used.”' 48

39
People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349, 359-60 (1992) (citing In the Matter of Samuel 
Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970))
40
 See Science and Technology in Judicial Decision: Making Creating 
Opportunities and Meeting Challenges (A Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government) 23, available at http://www.ccstg. 
org/pdfs/JudicialDecision Makingo393.pdf (last accessed Feb. 28, 2013)
41
See National Forensic Science Technology Center, Types of Evidence, available 
at http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subjectoi/pdi_s01_moi_01.htm (last accessed 
Feb. 28, 2013).

42
59. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME, CRIME SCENE AND 
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AWARENESS FOR NON-FORENSIC PERSONNEL intro. (2009) (citing PAUL L. KIRK, CRIME INVESTIGATION: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND THE POLICE
LABORATORY (1953)). 

43
 See Erie County Central Police Services Forensic Laboratory, Methods Used for 
Examination of Evidence, available at http://www2.erie.gov/cps/sites/ www2.erie.gov.cps/files/uploads/pdfs/Methods%20Used%20for%20Examinatio 
n%20of%20Evidence.pdf (last accessed Feb. 28, 2013)
44
See Joseph Peterson, et al., The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in the 
Criminal Justice Process (A Research Report Submitted to the United States Department of Justice), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesi/nij/ 
grants/231977.pdf (last accessed Feb. 28, 2013).
45
 Peterson, supra note 25, at 3
46
 Id
47
d. at 4 Note that while the year that the research was conducted was before 
1987, the same findings may still be applicable to the Philippines, where the use 
of forensic evidence in court has not evolved that much.

48
Id. at 5. 
2013] WRONGFUL CONVICTION & FORENSIC EVIDENCE 1167
RESOURCES:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_138874_2005.html

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016decemberdecisions.php?id=1099

ATENEO LAW JOURNAL: WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND THE CASE FOR FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINE CRIINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM, ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES

http://ateneolawjournal.com/Media/uploads/aa90f8e6a3754c2c9a445e3bfa6c8828.pdf